PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     *Hey im new here I HAVE A Q*~
       hey i have a question on creationism..

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
HEATH18677

|        |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[center][size=12]hello..my name is heather...Does anyone here know where I can find a good website...that will give me evidence on creationism...im writing a research paper and im having a difficult time finding information...i would appreciaite it...thanx a ton! And if you could send it to my email adress thanx so much...God Bless all! HEATH18677@aol.com [random]


-------
~*To the world you maybe one person, but to one person you maybe the world.*~
*~Never stop smiling, because you never know who is falling in love with your smile :-D~*

831,
Heather
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 9:15 PM on January 2, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
0

Rate this post:

"hello..my name is heather...Does anyone here know where I can find a good website...that will give me evidence on creationism...im writing a research paper and im having a difficult time finding information."

Hi Heather

The reason you can't find any information on evidence for creationism is because there isn't any, at least no hard, empirical evidence.  As far as the scientific community goes, creationism was falsified, disproven, over 200 years ago.  No evidence has been found since then to over turn this falsification.  And the evidence that disproves it is overwhelming.  So I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you....
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:56 PM on January 2, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But if you want to read it anyway:

drdino.com

(so sue me)
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 10:00 PM on January 2, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Because I am feeling kind I will also add:

Be very skeptical about what you read on that site.

Keep your guard up, keep to the path of realising that the site is trying to convert you and often does not stick to the truth while trying.

Remember the best place to learn about something is not from someone who is against it.

You will learn about Creationism at DrDino, but do not expect to learn anything accurate about evolution.

Farewell and God speed!
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 10:09 PM on January 2, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the BEST site I've come across for some good evidence on creationism is:

http://www.finalfrontier.org.uk/creation.htm

I encourage everyone to check it out.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:44 PM on January 2, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Posted by Void:

"You will learn about Creationism at DrDino, but do not expect to learn anything accurate about evolution."

Recommending Dr. Dino??!!!  Is this some kind of sign that the end is near or what??

I'm sorry Void, I'm going to have to report you to the Inner Sanctum, you deserve to be dishonorably discharged from the Secret Society of Evil Evolutionist Conspiritors...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:05 AM on January 3, 2004 | IP
Swank

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b][center][size=16][color=yellow]
first off, there is MUCH evidence supporting the SCIENCE (and yes, it is a science) of Creationism. there is also much evidence against evolution. ever thought of why pulonium halos froze when, according to the theory of evolution, they wouldve melted by the intense heat? ever wonder why some dinosaur bones have been found intact without being fossilized? and dont try to convince me with carbon dating, because that has almost more faulty tests than successes. dont try to use DNA on me, either. we havent decoded even 1% of the human DNA strand yet, so you cant judge on that.
oh, yeah. if you were wondering where you could find SCIENTIFICAL info on this topic, look for a Dr. Kent Hovind. he is an expert on this subject.


-------
-Swank--"Because sometimes its just that swank."
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 7:25 PM on March 29, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow, rampant stupidity.  Who would have expected it?

Polonium haloes:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
Dinosaur bones have not been found unfossilized.  There are many different degrees of fossilization found however.  Somehow I have the feeling you're speaking about this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html
Carbon dating wouldn't be used to convince you of the age of dinos since it only works to about 50 KYA:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html
DNA:  big deal.  What we do know only adds to the body of evidence supporting the ToE.
Yes, everyone looking for "scientifical"  (whatever that is) evidence, please, take a close look at Hovind.  Especially his evidence for the New World Order's plan to wipe out civilization and enslave the survivors.  Also be sure to check out his other greatest hits:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/

Kent Hovind is a liar, a thief a charlatan, and an idiot to boot, so by all means, praise your champion.  Just realize that by doing so you are painting all christians with the same brush in the eyes of those who don't believe.

BTW, he's no more a doctor than I am.  Take a look at this review of his "dissertation:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 9:08 PM on March 29, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

first off, there is MUCH evidence supporting the SCIENCE (and yes, it is a science) of Creationism. there is also much evidence against evolution.

This is not true!  Creationism was soundly disproven over 200 years ago!  There is no evidence supporting a young earth and a veritable avalance of evidence showing that the earth is quite old.  There is no evidence that falsifies evolution.

ever thought of why pulonium halos froze when, according to the theory of evolution, they wouldve melted by the intense heat?

This has nothing to do with evolution, this is a matter for geologists.  TQ's link is an excellent refutation of polonium halos being evidence for a young earth, please read it.

ever wonder why some dinosaur bones have been found intact without being fossilized?

This is simply not true.  You need to do more research...

and dont try to convince me with carbon dating, because that has almost more faulty tests than successes.

Again, this is not true.  Carbon dating has been tested on historically known artifacts and has found to be very accurate within it's limitations.  Creationists are infamous for misusing Carbon 14 dating and claiming it's not accurate, very dishonest!

dont try to use DNA on me, either. we havent decoded even 1% of the human DNA strand yet, so you cant judge on that.

Again, you are wrong, we have decoded much more of the human genome.  From here:
Genome

"The sequences are about 90% complete for the euchromatic (weakly staining, gene-rich) regions of the human chromosomes. The estimated total size of the genome is 3.2 Gb (that is gigabases, the latest escalation of units needed to contain the fruits of modern technology). Of that, about 2.95 Gb is euchromatic. Only 1.1% to 1.4% is sequence that actually encodes protein; that is just 5% of the 28% of the sequence that is transcribed into RNA. Over half of the DNA consists of repeated sequences of various types: 45% in four classes of parasitic DNA elements, 3% in repeats of just a few bases, and about 5% in recent duplications of large segments of DNA. "

So we know much more about DNA than you say and it all fits in with and is explained by the theory of evolution.

You say you're in eighth grade, that's good, but you have to learn to do more research.  Science supports an old earth and the theory if evolution because the evidence is overwhelming.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:39 PM on March 29, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is not true!  Creationism was soundly disproven over 200 years ago!  There is no evidence supporting a young earth and a veritable avalance of evidence showing that the earth is quite old.  There is no evidence that falsifies evolution.


You seem to use this argument a lot.  Does this mean you have no idea of any evidence produced by creationists in the last 200 years?  I could tell you that Evolution was "soundly disproven" 4500 years ago during Noah's flood - the written record of history... countless other evidences (such as fossil records, geological records, etc) demonstrate a global flood actually happened.  But ... then again... you don't need to listen to the evidence because creationism was disproved 200 years ago.  How can anyone argue with a 200 year old scientific decision!!?  

Creationism was indeed not disproven 200 years ago.  In fact more and more evidence emerges every day in direct contradiction to evolution.  

Want to see some?  


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 12:50 PM on April 6, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This should be good.  I would love to see some.  Start wherever you want, but please be sure to mention where the fossil record and geological records support the existence of a Noachian flood.

BTW, just so you know, the bible is not a "written record of history"

Now, bring on the "evidence"!


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 2:02 PM on April 6, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thank you for the opportunity TQ!

One major aspect of the Grand Canyon that really indicates that a flood occured is that the contact points between layers go on for miles and miles without dips or erosion. Ask any geologist and they will tell you that that is the sign of a flood, although, since creationism was disproven 200 years ago...I guess we have to come up with some other explanation.


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 2:44 PM on April 6, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh my GOD!!!!  there was a flood at some point in earths history at that location!!!  Then it must be true that the entire planet was covered with water for a year!  What other explanation could there be?!?!  It's not like it could have been a local flood!  Especially being so near a river!  Rivers have never flooded before, and are not known for leaving floodplains!!

Anyone catch the sarcasm?


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 5:34 PM on April 6, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You seem to use this argument a lot.  

It's a valid arguement!  And there has been no evidence that supports creationism.  

I could tell you that Evolution was "soundly disproven" 4500 years ago during Noah's flood - the written record of history... countless other evidences (such as fossil records, geological records, etc) demonstrate a global flood actually happened.

No, there was no global flood, so evolution has not been disproven, it is still the only explaination for the diversity of life on Earth.
The fossil record does not support a global flood, it disproves it.  Geological records do not support a global flood, they disprove it.  You better have better evidence than this to support your silly superstition.

Creationism was indeed not disproven 200 years ago.  In fact more and more evidence emerges every day in direct contradiction to evolution.

Yes creationism was disproven over 200 years agao when christian geologists realized that the earth couldn't possibly be only 10000 years old.  When they realized that there never could have been a global flood.  And when they realized that in the fossil record, the deeper they dug, the more different the organisms were!  Since then, NO evidence has been produced to support creationism and all the evidence from multiple scientific disciplines have supported the theory of evolution.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:46 PM on April 6, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What evidence would one expect from a global watery cataclysm that drowned the animals, birds and people not on the Ark?  All around the world, in rock layer after rock layer, we find billions of dead things that have been buried in water-carried mud and sand.  Their state of preservation frequently tells of rapid burial and fossilization, just like one would expect in such a flood.  

Fossil ‘graveyards’ around the world, where the bones of many animals were washed together, buried, and fossilized, are evidence for a watery cataclysm like Noah's flood.
There is abundant evidence that many of the rock strata were laid down quickly, one after the other, without significant time breaks between them.  Preservation of animal tracks, ripple marks and even raindrop marks, testifies to rapid covering of these features to enable their preservation.  Polystrate fossils (ones which traverse many strata) speak of very quick deposition of the strata.  The scarcity of erosion, soil formation, animal burrows and roots between layers also shows they must have been deposited in quick succession.  The radical deformation of thick layers of sediment without evidence of cracking or melting also shows how all the layers must have been still soft when they were bent.  Dykes (walls) and pipes (cylinders) of sandstone which connect with the same material many layers beneath show that the layers beneath must have been still soft, and contained much water.  That the sandstone could be squeezed up through cracks above to form the ‘clastic’ dykes and pipes, again shows rapid deposition of many strata.  

The worldwide distribution of many geological features and rock types is also consistent with a global Flood.  The Morrison Formation is a layer of sedimentary rock that extends from Texas to Canada, clearly showing the fallacy of the still popular belief that ‘the present is the key to the past’—there are no processes occurring on Earth today that are laying down such large areas of sedimentary layers.  In reality, God’s revelation about the past is the key to understanding the present.  

The limited geographic extent of unconformities (clear breaks in the sequence of deposition with different tilting of layers, etc.) is also consistent with the reality of the global Flood.  And there are many other evidences for the Flood.

The problem is not the evidence but the mindset of those looking at the evidence.  One geologist testified how he never saw any evidence for the Flood—until, as a Christian, he was convinced from the Bible that the Flood must have been a global cataclysm.  Now he sees the evidence everywhere.  The Bible talks about people being corrupted in their thinking after turning their backs on God (Romans 1:18ff.) and of people being so spiritually blind that they cannot see the obvious (Acts 28:25–27).  

---

It's a valid arguement!  And there has been no evidence that supports creationism.


Actually, it's not a valid argument, and as I will and have shown there is a host of evidence that supports creation.  You simply choose to ignore it.

No, there was no global flood, so evolution has not been disproven, it is still the only explaination for the diversity of life on Earth.
The fossil record does not support a global flood, it disproves it.  Geological records do not support a global flood, they disprove it.  You better have better evidence than this to support your silly superstition.


Actually, there was a global flood, the fossil and geological records show evidence of such.  You are simply looking through the "beer goggles" of "there is no god, evolution must be true".  Also, as we have already established, you have ignored any evidence that supports creation that has come out in the last 200 years.  Time to pull your head out of the sand I think.

You can see some other geological evidences here:  http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-155.htm

From Creation Magazine:

Buried birth
There is an exquisitely preserved fossil of an extinct marine reptile called an ichthyosaur. The mother ichthyosaur is shown having almost completed giving birth to a live infant—the beak of the young reptile is still inside mother's birth canal.

Most members of the public still think, as a result of years of conditioning, that the formation of fossils is somehow associated with long time-spans. Those who accept the Bible as the truthful Word of the Creator would know that this cannot be, since there could not have been death and bloodshed before the rebellion of the first man, Adam. They would therefore expect evidence that fossil formation is generally a rapid, catastrophic process.

When one finds a fossil of an isolated tooth or shell, for example, it is not possible to say how quickly or slowly it formed. However, there are countless examples of fossils concerning which it is obvious that long time-spans could not have been involved. For instance, fossils which have features so beautifully preserved that they must have been buried and hardened before they could be damaged by scavengers or decay.

In this spectacular case, not only is the fossil exquisitely preserved, but the fact that mother and infant are 'trapped' in a not-yet-completed birth process makes it profoundly clear that both were rapidly overwhelmed by catastrophic burial, consistent with the world flood of Noah's day. It is, of course, not feasible that mother just lay on the bottom of the ocean floor giving birth for thousands of years while being slowly covered up by accumulating sediments!

Unlike many other reptiles, ichthyosaurs gave birth to live young. Another photo shows another fossilised mother ichthyosaur with several unborn in her abdomen, and with what appears to be a newborn juvenile a short distance away (perhaps her own). Again, the beautiful state of preservation defies the idea that long time-spans were involved in the formation of this fossil.

---
Dino-Bird Evolution Falls Flat!
by Jonathan Sarfati
First published in:
Creation Ex Nihilo 20(2):41,

Readers may remember the recent media fanfare about the so-called ‘feathered dinosaurs’ (including Sinosauropteryx) supposedly proving that dinosaurs evolved into birds. We covered these in Creation 19(2):6 (see online version) and 19(4):49, 1997. We cautioned that many media ‘proofs’ of evolution are later refuted with barely a whimper in the media. Recent research has proved the point:

‘New research shows that birds lack the embryonic thumb that dinosaurs had, suggesting that it is “almost impossible” for the species to be closely related.’ A team led by bird expert Alan Feduccia, chairman of biology at the University of North Carolina, studied bird embryos under a microscope, and published their study in the journal Science.

A team led by John Ruben, a respiratory physiology expert at Oregon State University in Corvallis, analysed fossil outlines of Sinosauropteryx’s internal organs. Its ‘bellowslike lungs could not have evolved into the high-performance lungs of modern birds.’ Indeed, birds have a complicated system of air sacs which keep air flowing in one direction through special tubes (parabronchi) in the lung, and blood moves through the lung’s blood vessels in the opposite direction for efficient oxygen uptake, an excellent engineering design. Interestingly, some defenders of dinosaur-to-bird evolution, discount this evidence against their theory by saying ‘the proponents of this argument offer no animal whose lungs could have given rise to those in birds, which are extremely complex and are unlike the lungs of any living animal.’ Of course, only evolutionary faith requires that bird lungs arose from lungs of another animal.

Also, Ruben and ancient bird expert Larry Martin believe that the so-called ‘feather’ traces are actually frayed collagen fibres beneath the skin. Feather expert Alan Brush, University of Connecticut, Storrs, points out that they ‘lack the organization found in modern feathers.’

---

As you guys can see... there is a host of evidence to support creation.  Quite frankly, it is extremely erroneous to say that it has been disproven, or that there is no evidence (so far the only arguments I have see you gentlemen even attempt).  

It's time to wake up and realize that no one has it down 100%.  We all use the same data but we interpret it differently based on our presuppositions.  Obviously, someone like me makes the presupposition that the bible is true, and that the world was created by God.  Evolutionists make the pre-supposition that the world and everything in it came to be through "natural" processes.  (read: without intelligent influence)

But that's what science is all about - having a hypothesis (one might say presupposition) and proving it correct or incorrect.  It just so happens that we are making hypothesis about things that are unobservable, then trying to interpret data to approximate an answer.  Both positions require faith (literally defined as the evidence of things you haven't seen).  

Science and the Bible go hand in hand.  They are a match made in heaven.  2Ti 2:15 says: Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

2Pe 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:  

2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,  

2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.  

2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:  

2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:  

2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.  

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.  

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.  

It is no co-incidence that the flood is given along with the very formula for the theory of relativity (1 day = 1000 years as you approach the speed of light).  2000 years before einstein proved it, the bible stated it ... and stated it in the same breath as it stated there was a global flood.  It's like saying "you can mark the validity of my words by the truth in these statements".  

 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 7:17 PM on April 6, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What evidence would one expect from a global watery cataclysm that drowned the animals, birds and people not on the Ark?  All around the world, in rock layer after rock layer, we find billions of dead things that have been buried in water-carried mud and sand.  Their state of preservation frequently tells of rapid burial and fossilization, just like one would expect in such a flood.

Except that one would expect to see evidence of a flood in the same layers of the geological column world wide, we don't see that.  Good evidence that a world wide flood didn't happen.  And yes we find billions of dead things, many of them fossilixed by water carried sediment, but we find them in strict chronological order.  In a world wide flood we would expect organisms with similar environments to be buried together, but we don't.  No dinosaurs buried with humans, no trilobites buried with stingrays.  The specific order of the fossil record disproves a young earth and a world wide flood.

Fossil ‘graveyards’ around the world, where the bones of many animals were washed together, buried, and fossilized, are evidence for a watery cataclysm like Noah's flood.

No they are not, at least not evidence for a global flood...

There is abundant evidence that many of the rock strata were laid down quickly, one after the other, without significant time breaks between them.  Preservation of animal tracks, ripple marks and even raindrop marks, testifies to rapid covering of these features to enable their preservation.  Polystrate fossils (ones which traverse many strata) speak of very quick deposition of the strata.  The scarcity of erosion, soil formation, animal burrows and roots between layers also shows they must have been deposited in quick succession.  The radical deformation of thick layers of sediment without evidence of cracking or melting also shows how all the layers must have been still soft when they were bent.  Dykes (walls) and pipes (cylinders) of sandstone which connect with the same material many layers beneath show that the layers beneath must have been still soft, and contained much water.  That the sandstone could be squeezed up through cracks above to form the ‘clastic’ dykes and pipes, again shows rapid deposition of many strata.

All this is wrong,  all sediments were not laid down quickly and by water.  Once again, you are making things up to fit your myths....I see you even mention polystrate fossils as evidence but they explained by conventional geology decades ago.  

But let's look at some things that clearly show that the flood was impossible.  First of all there is not enough water on the planet to cover the entire earth and there never was.
If the earth was completely covered to the top of the highest mountain, as it says in the bible, most of our atmosphere would boil off into space, since we still have a breathable atmosphere and it couldn't have possibly regenerated in a mere 4000 years, there was no flood.
We can measure "rebound" of land masses from cataclysmic events.  North America, nothern Europe and Asia all are rebounding from the las ice age that ended 10,000 years ago.  The ice that spread across these areas was only a fraction of the weight of a supposed world wide flood and yet Africa and South America show no signs of rebound.   The only conclusion is that there was never a world wide flood.

All the evidence you have shown is false and was falsified decades ago, the world of geology agrees, there never was a global flood!

Let's move on to dinosaur to bird evolution, once again, you claim that the majority of paleontologists are wrong.  The prevailing theory in science is that dinosaurs evolved into birds:
From here:
dinobirds

" Although the new fossils closely resemble Archaeopteryx in some ways, they lack the precise form of true birds -- in particular the length of wing and design of individual feathers. For this reason, the researchers believe the fossils were true dinosaurs that are the immediate ancestors of the first birds.
They represent a missing link between dinosaurs and birds which we had expected to find," said Ji Quiang, director of the National Geological Museum in Beijing, who worked on the fossils. "

‘New research shows that birds lack the embryonic thumb that dinosaurs had, suggesting that it is “almost impossible” for the species to be closely related.’ A team led by bird expert Alan Feduccia, chairman of biology at the University of North Carolina, studied bird embryos under a microscope, and published their study in the journal
Science.


See you can't find anyone to support your silly assertion so you use Alan Feduccia.  Feduccia is one of the few that don't support dino to bird evolution, he believes that birds EVOLVED from an earlier archosaur, so he does support evolution and if you had any integrity you would have mentioned that.

And again you use John Ruben to support your erroneous assertions, Ruben does not support dino to bird evolution but he does support reptile to bird evolution, again, you are dishonest to use a quote from him.  You imply that both he and Feduccia don't support evolution when in fact they do.  It's true they hold the minority position in the world of paleontology but they still support the theory of evolution.

From here:dinobirdII

"Even the most ardent opponents of the dinosaur bird lineage agreed that they had some kinship.  Two other theories proposed that birds descended from a group known as Thecodonts,  or other more primitive reptiles.  If one of these were true,  then reptiles and birds would still have many of the same derived characteristics,  and they do.  Reptiles and birds both lay eggs and have scales.  Feathers are nothing more than modified and elongated scales.  These are two similarities that invariably link the groups.  Looking more specifically,  we will find many dinosaurian traits that will also be bird-like.  These occur in far greater numbers than would be expected through convergent evolution  (Norman 1994)."

from here:
dinobirdIII

"The popular notion that birds evolved from dinosaurs has come under assault recently with the discovery of fossil evidence of a feathered reptile that pre-dates birds. Now a researcher at the Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture at the University of Washington and a Japanese colleague have found similarities in bone structure suggesting that birds did, in fact, evolve from a group of dinosaurs."

As far as feathers go, from here:
dinofeathers

"The unusually well preserved fossil dinosaur is covered from head to tail with downy fluff and primitive feathers. Announced in the latest edition of the international Nature magazine, it's claimed to be the first dinosaur found with its entire body covering intact, providing the best evidence yet that animals developed feathers for warmth before they could fly. It's been identified as a small and rapid two-legged predator.
We know about dinosaurs with feathers. They existed. Things like cordioptrics which actually has little tiny half-wings with feathers on them. They have fully formed feathers.
We also have some dinosaurs such as sinosoroctrics which have a sort of fuzzy looking fur on them which we're not quite sure of. It's not a feather - could it possibly be something that was there before feathers? We don't really know.
Then along comes this fella and it's got exactly what you'd expect an animal to have if it was evolving feathers from a furry type covering. It's got filaments just looking like fur. It's also got these filaments in some places arranged into tufts that look like down feathers, and in other places on the animal these filaments are arranged in a herringbone pattern, very similar to a fully formed bird feather.
So it, if you like, is the missing link in the story of where feathers come from."

AS you can see, you are 100% wrong about dino/bird evolution, the prevailing theory is that dinosaurs evolved into birds and the evidence is overwhelming, your dishonest tactics of misquoting scientists and taking their statements out of context really doesn't prove your point, not matter what you want to be true, reality supports evolution!





 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:35 PM on April 6, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One major aspect of the Grand Canyon that really indicates that a flood occured is that the contact points between layers go on for miles and miles without dips or erosion. Ask any geologist and they will tell you that that is the sign of a flood, although, since creationism was disproven 200 years ago...I guess we have to come up with some other   explanation.

Yes, I guess you will!  That's the first intelligent thing I've seen you post!
As to the Grand Canyon, from here:grandcanyon

"When did all this happen?

The Earth was formed approximately 5 billion years ago.

The roots of the ancient mountain range that now lies at the bottom of the Grand Canyon were formed about 1.7 billion years ago.

There is then an unconformity of about 450 million year in which the rocks are missing.

At 1.25 billion years ago the first sedimentary layer, the Bass Formation, was laid down. Ancient coastal dwelling colonies of algae known as Stromatolites are preserved within this layer and indicate that the area was coastal at that time.

At 1.2 billion years ago the sea retreated leaving mud flats behind which eventually became the Hakatai Shale.

At 1.19 billion years a similar layer was deposited which is known as the Dox Formation. This was again formed of mudstones and shales and contains ripple marks as well as other features that indicate that it was close to the coast.

Between 1.25 and 1.1 billion years ago there was also some volcanic activity with the region of the Grand Canyon and this is when the Cardenas Basalts were formed.

Between 1 billion and 825 million years ago additional coastal and shallow sea formations, which are now classified as the Chuar group, were deposited.

There is then another unconformity of about 250 million years in which new rock layers were probably laid down but were completely eroded away.

The Tapeats Sandstone was then deposited around 550 million years ago along long vanished coastline. There are places in the Canyon in which in which off shore islands have been found imbedded within this layer.

The Bright Angel Shale was deposited around 540 million years ago and indicates that the ocean was again advancing.

The Muav Limestone was deposited around 530 million years ago at the bottom of a shallow sea.

The thick layer of Redwall Limestone which began to deposited around 330 million years ago indicates that the land was submerged for a great deal of time.

The Supai Group which rests atop the Redwall is dated at 300 million years ago and indicates that it was formed in an above water and coastal environment.

The Hermit Shale which was deposited around 280 million years ago contains many plant fossils which indicate that it was also above water.

The Coconino Sandstone represents the remains of a vast sea of sand dunes which was blown down from the north around 270 million years ago.

The layers found within Toroweap Formation contains both sandstone and limestone, indicating that it was sometimes coastal and sometimes submerged. These layers date to around 260 million years.

The top layer of the Grand Canyon, the Kaibab Limestone, contains many marine fossils which indicate that it originated at the bottom of the sea. This layer is around 250 million years old.

Rock layers younger than 250 million years have been eroded away and no longer exist in the immediate vicinity of the Grand Canyon.

The Rocky Mountains begin to form 60-70 million years ago and at some point later the Colorado River is born. "

I think the evidence is obvious, the Grand Canyon could not have been formed by a global flood.  we can see where ancient seas ebbed and flowed, retreated and advanced, these are not characteristics that could be formed by a massive flood.  Look at the Coconino Sandstone, it could not have been formed in a flood:  from the same website:

"Coconino Sandstone - This layer averages about 260 million years old and is composed of pure quartz sand, which are basically petrified sand dunes. Wedge-shaped cross bedding can be seen where traverse-type dunes have been petrified. The color of this layer ranges from white to cream colored. No skeletal fossils have yet to be found but numerous invertebrate tracks and fossilized burrows do exist. "

You can't petrifiy sanddunes in a flood!  Animal tracks and burrows can not be preserved in a flood....

And once again, this is what the consensus of the geological world is, why are they wrong and you're right?  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:40 AM on April 7, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I said "There is abundant evidence that many of the rock strata were laid down quickly, ..."

To which you replied "All this is wrong,  all sediments were not laid down quickly and by water.

Dunno what evolutionary scientific calculator you may be using over there.... ;)

There is an interesting page listed below that answers many of the questions brought up in your post, Demon38.
http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

It has a bit of a Q & A with Mark Isaac (one of the heros of this forum for sure).

Let me touch on a point -

Demon, you noted that there isn't enough water to cover the whole earth... Here is a creationists reply - "Note that the Bible talks about mountains rising (in connection with God's rainbow promise, so after the Flood): see CEN Technical Journal 12(3):312–313, 1998. Everest has marine fossils at its peak. Therefore, the mountains before the Flood are not those of today. There is enough water in the oceans so that, if all the surface features of the earth were evened out, water would cover the earth to a depth of 2.7 km (1.7 miles). This is not enough to cover mountains the height of Everest, but it shows that the pre-Flood mountains could have been several kilometres high and still be covered."

All the evidence you have shown is false...

I would compare this statement to the following:  "All generalizations are false".  It demonstrates about the same logic and brings with it about the same evidence.

You want to hear more evidence on the grand canyon?   Here is something written by Dr Tasman Bruce Walker

"One would expect that hundreds of millions of years would have been plenty of time for the sediment to cement into hard rock.

Yet, the evidence indicates that the sediments were soft and unconsolidated when they bent. Instead of fracturing like the basement did, the entire layer thinned as it bent. The sand grains show no evidence that the material was brittle and rock-hard, because none of the grains are elongated.1 Neither has the mineral cementing the grains been broken and recrystallized. Instead, the evidence points to the whole 1,200-m (4,000-ft) thickness of strata being still ‘plastic’ when it was uplifted. In other words, the millions of years of geologic time are imaginary. This ‘plastic’ deformation of Grand Canyon strata dramatically demonstrates the reality of the catastrophic global Flood of Noah’s day. "





(Edited by Gup20 4/7/2004 at 2:15 PM).
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 04:42 AM on April 7, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Since I showed in another post that it's a virtual fact that the Grand Canyon is extremely old and could not possibly be the result of a flood, let's deal with some of your other flood related points.  First off, Trueorigins is a pack of crap, no reliable information there...  So if you want to attempt to refute any of my points, you'll have to do it yourself...

Everest has marine fossils at its peak.

You're not trying to use THIS as evidence of a world wide flood are you???!!  Everyone knows that the Himalayan mountains were formed when the Indian sub continent slammed into Asia roughly 50 million years ago.
The top of Mt. Everest was the bottom of the Tethys sea at that time, this is why there are marine fossils on the summit of Mt. Everest, not due to a world wide flood!

Therefore, the mountains before the Flood are not those of today. There is enough water in the oceans so that, if all the surface features of the earth were evened out, water would cover the earth to a depth of 2.7 km (1.7 miles). This is not enough to cover mountains the height of Everest, but it shows that the pre-Flood mountains could have been several kilometres high and still be       covered."

But we know the rate at which Mt. Everest is growing, we know that there were several mountain ranges over the earth at the time, so there is no way imaginable to say that there is enough water to cover the earth.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:54 AM on April 7, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: Oh my GOD!!!!  there was a flood at some point in earths history at that location!!!  Then it must be true that the entire planet was covered with water for a year!  What other explanation could there be?!?!  It's not like it could have been a local flood!  Especially being so near a river!  Rivers have never flooded before, and are not known for leaving floodplains!!

Anyone catch the sarcasm?


TQ, you know very well that I am not ruling out local flooding, especially near a river. Your sarcasm is still not enough to explain away how millions of years between layers has not left a bit of erosion at contact points.

Illustration:




-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 11:00 AM on April 7, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

did you not read demon's post?  He just outlined the entire history of the Grand Canyon, and there is quite a few of erosional features, so I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 2:44 PM on April 7, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The top of Mt. Everest was the bottom of the Tethys sea at that time
...
If the earth was completely covered to the top of the highest mountain ...

Split personlity disorder?  First you claim as evidence against the flood that the water couldn't possibly have covered the highest mountain (which is Mount Everest).  Then, when I provide evidence that marine fossils exist (which again is irrefutable) you argue that the the moutain hadn't formed yet and indeed started underwater.  So then... lets revisit your first argument - that there isn't enough water to cover the tallest mountain - wait... say what?  The tallest mountain hadn't formed?  The earth was far more level?  Wow... I guess there WAS enough water to cover the entire earth afterall.

It's arguments like this that I just shake my head at when evolutionists say "there is no evidence for creation".
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 3:04 PM on April 7, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

corect me if I'm wrong, but does it not say in the bible that the flood covered the tops of the tallest mountains?  Why yes, here it is:

Genesis 7
20   Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

And yet you say he earth was flat then, and the mountains and valley were smoothed out.   So, the bible is the literal truth, except where you don't want it to be?   How did you put it?  Oh yes:
"It's arguments like this that I just shake my head at when creationists say "there is evidence for creation"."


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 3:12 PM on April 7, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The thick layer of Redwall Limestone which began to deposited around 330 million years ago indicates that the land was submerged for a great deal of time.


On top of the Redwall Limestone is the recently named Surprise Canyon Formation which is a series of stream beds cut into the Redwall limestone.



Surprise Canyon formation


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 3:15 PM on April 7, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Regarding Grand Canyon.  There is clear evidence of bending of layers in places.  The bends show no sign of tearing or breaking at the bends, which would have been the case had the rock layers all been hardening for millions of years.  

A more plausible theory is that multiple layers were laid down at once and then bent while still soft.

This evidence, coupled with Young Earth Toad's post on contact points provides some very good evidence to start laying a foundation to support a creationist viewpoint.  However, I doubt that an evolutionist would take the time to consider it.  (that's your que guys to pull out the "that's laughable" "that's wrong" "the evidence is overwhelming" uniformed response list).  Notice we never see any evidence to refute - only the "I am right and you are wrong, I am rubber you are glue" argument over and over.
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 3:22 PM on April 7, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I haven't seen much of the "I'm right your wrong" argument, but I have seen a lot of the "I'm just going to ignore wha you siad because I disagree" argument from you.  Rock bends quite easily without breaking, provided the pressure is constant and slow.  Deformation readily occurs under these conditions, so there goes that argument.  Consider this:  Glass shatters if you hit it, yet it flows.  Check out some very old glass (a hundred years should do it) and you can see that it is thicker at the bottom and it is deformed from the flow.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 3:30 PM on April 7, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Regarding Grand Canyon.  There is clear evidence of bending of layers in places.  The bends show no sign of tearing or breaking at the bends, which would have been the case had the rock layers all been hardening for millions of years.  


I suggest that if you actually measured the plastic deformation characteristics of these rocks you would not make this statement.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 3:35 PM on April 7, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from TQ at 3:12 PM on April 7, 2004 :
corect me if I'm wrong, but does it not say in the bible that the flood covered the tops of the tallest mountains?  Why yes, here it is:

Genesis 7
20   Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

And yet you say he earth was flat then, and the mountains and valley were smoothed out.   So, the bible is the literal truth, except where you don't want it to be?   How did you put it?  Oh yes:
"It's arguments like this that I just shake my head at when creationists say "there is evidence for creation"."


So you are a Bible Scholar now too?  I would suggest perhaps you stick to "what you know".

Let's read the context of that verse - Genesis 7:19 says "...all the high hills were covered..."
The original Hebrew word in the text is HAR, which litterally means hill, hill country, or mountain.  The word is used 546 times in the Bible and less than half of those are used to refer to mountain.  More than half are used to refer to hill.  The context of previous verse clearly gives us the intended meaning of the word.

It was meant to mean hill, which fits in with creationists view that the earth terrain was more level (not flat as TQ suggests) without the great peaks and valleys we see today.

Here is yet another example of evolutionists circular reasoning... he would argue as evidence that there isn't enough water to cover the tallest mountain (mt everest), then argue that everest was flat in ancient days then Misinterpret the Bible and imply that Evolution is true because the Bible is false.  

Herein again we see brought out by the very nature of TQ's argument that in his heart he believes that Creation and the Bible go hand in hand... if the bible is true, creation is true, evolution is false, and he is accountable to God.  He wants to believe he is not accountable to anyone but himself, so he continues to worship at the feet of Evolution theory, and humanism.

Your own words betray you my friend.

Luk 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 3:56 PM on April 7, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Split personlity disorder?  First you claim as evidence against the flood that the water couldn't possibly have covered the highest mountain (which is Mount Everest).  Then, when I provide evidence that marine fossils exist (which again is irrefutable) you argue that the the moutain hadn't formed yet and indeed started underwater.  So then... lets revisit your first argument - that there isn't enough water to cover the tallest mountain - wait... say what?  The tallest mountain hadn't formed?  The earth was far more level?  Wow... I guess there WAS enough water to cover the entire earth afterall.

It's arguments like this that I just shake my head at when evolutionists say "there is no evidence for creation".


Geez, what's so difficult about the explaination?  6000 years ago there were tall mountains, Everest was almost as high as it is now.  50 million years ago the top of Mt. Everest was the bottom of the Tethys sea, that's why there are marine life fossils on the top.  No global flood was involved with depositing them.  Is that clear?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:02 PM on April 7, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Check out some very old glass (a hundred years should do it) and you can see that it is thicker at the bottom and it is deformed from the flow.


Sorry, but to maintain evolooshunist integrity, I must point out that this in an urban myth.

Does Glass Flow?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 4:13 PM on April 7, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, lawdy lawdy!!  You caught me out!  I'm really a satanist, and I come to these boards to poison the minds of the innocent.  He more souls I collect, the better the air conditioning in my sulphur pit in hell.

Here's a suggestion for you.  Stop believing that you are the only "true" christian in the world because others don't agree with you narow minded, xenophobic view.  You do realize that with your little rant here you do nothing but reinforce negative stereotypes about christians everywhere, right?

Anyways, thanks once again for responding to the facts with attempted insults and blusters.  And just fo your information, I am quite sure that if I am judged when I die that I will do just fine.  Can you say the same?

As for an actual response to my post, let's see...  Hmm, I get told to "stick with what I know" (could say the same, as it's obvious you know nothing about science), then I get mixed in with Demon somehow, proving once again that your reading comprehension is abyssmal, then some more babble.
OK, learning time!  So, there were no mountains, the earth was smooth, but we still find mention of high points (hills, if you prefer) in the bible.  So, the earth isn't smooth.  Then, you accuse Demon of error when he says not enough water to cover mountains/everest was under water.  You do realize that mountains are formed when land is raised by tectonic processes, right?  See Everest was once the floor of a sea that divided Asia and India.  When these continental plates collided, the land was raised, and former marine sediments were uplifted.  Still with me here?  Now, we know this occured, because the process is occuring today.  This more than adequately explains the marine sediments on Everest.

By the way, shouldn't you be working on fasifying the ToE?  I gave you a couple criteria to work on.  How are those coming?


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 4:17 PM on April 7, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It was meant to mean hill, which fits in with creationists view that the earth terrain was more level (not flat as TQ suggests) without the great peaks and valleys we see today.

But we know that high mountains existed, your assertion that terrain was more level has no basis in reality, you're making it up to try and support your myth, simple as that!

Here is yet another example of evolutionists circular reasoning... he would argue as evidence that there isn't enough water to cover the tallest mountain (mt everest), then argue that everest was flat in ancient days then Misinterpret the Bible and imply that Evolution is true because the Bible is false.  

OK, so not only do you not understand evolution, you don't understand what a circular arguement is!  No ther is not enough water to cover the tallest mountain, there wasn't enough water to cover the highest mountain 6000 years ago.  but 50 million years ago, the tallest mountain wasn't a mountain, it was the bottom of a sea, that's where the marine fossils came from, again, this isn't even an arguement, it's a fact.

Herein again we see brought out by the very nature of TQ's argument that in his heart he believes that Creation and the Bible go hand in hand... if the bible is true, creation is true, evolution is false, and he is accountable to God.  He wants to believe he is not accountable to anyone but himself, so he continues to worship at the feet of Evolution theory, and humanism.

Don't be absurd!  We're not argueing against Creation, we're argueing against CreationISM!
It was disproved over 200 years ago.  And your little insites into what TQ wants to believe are even less than worthless!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:21 PM on April 7, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38: But we know that high mountains existed, your assertion that terrain was more level has no basis in reality, you're making it up to try and support your myth, simple as that!

But we know that high mountains did not exist, your assertion that terrain was not more level has no basis in reality, you're making it up to try and support your myth, simple as that!

Demon38: OK, so not only do you not understand evolution, you don't understand what a circular arguement is!  No ther is not enough water to cover the tallest mountain, there wasn't enough water to cover the highest mountain 6000 years ago.  but 50 million years ago, the tallest mountain wasn't a mountain, it was the bottom of a sea, that's where the marine fossils came from, again, this isn't even an arguement, it's a fact.

Ok, so not only do you not understand creation, you don't understand what a circular argument is! No there is not enough water to cover the tallest mountain, there was enough water to cover the highest mountain 6000 years ago.

Demon38: Don't be absurd!  We're not argueing against Creation, we're argueing against CreationISM!
It was disproved over 200 years ago.  And your little insites into what TQ wants to believe are even less than worthless!

Don't be absurd! Evolutionism was disproved over 200 years ago. And your little insites into what Gup20 wants to believe are even less than worthless.

Important Note: Notice how all I have to is change the words around (save the spelling errors).


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 10:48 AM on April 8, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry, but to maintain evolooshunist integrity, I must point out that this in an urban myth.

Does Glass Flow?



Oops.  Wel, god to know it's an urban legend.  I think it was my high school chem teacher who told me that as well



-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 12:54 PM on April 8, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Important Note: Notice how all I have to is change the words around...

...to come off as an ignorant know-nothing who has no real evidence to back himself up, so instead resorts to calling something he doesn't understand a religion (I assume that's how you meant to finish that sentence off).

So by this post, I have to assume you don't "believe" in plate tectonics, (no mountains 4 thousand years ago), debating tactics (no concept of what a circular argument is), and no idea of what science is (evolution disproven 200 years ago)

Once again let me ask:  If evolution is so wrong, why does no one come up with a better theory that better accomodates all the evidence and explains everyhing that the ToE does and more?  Does no one want a nobel prize and fame forever?  Oh wait, I remember.  The creationists have a better explanation, but they're being held down by "the man".  Their "Unified Theory of "God-can-do-what-he-wants-so-don't-qestion-or-you'll-go-to-hell-and-no-one-wants-to-go-to-hell-I'll-pray-for-you-poor-sinners" and Stuff" theory.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 1:02 PM on April 8, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ, where do you horrendous representations of creationists and Christians end? That seems to be your specialty. "...to come off as an ignorant know-nothing who has no real evidence to back himself up" That assumes that I have not made an effort to show compelling evidences for what I proport to believe, correct? Well, I have pointed out the following evidences, contact points at the Grand Canyon do not show erosion meaning that the time between them could not have been millions of years. Studies on crystals show C14 content in crystals that are supposed to be billions of years old. Zircons retain helium that is supposed to be in the atmosphere had they magmatized billions of years ago. It looks to me like I have provided tons of evidence but you have evolutionary earplugs in your ears. Anyways, how do you know how I am ending my sentences if I haven't even said that yet, seems rather deceptive.

Next, TQ says "So by this post, I have to assume you don't "believe" in plate tectonics, (no mountains 4 thousand years ago), debating tactics (no concept of what a circular argument is), and no idea of what science is (evolution disproven 200 years ago)"

I believe in plate tectonics, debating tactics, and science. I make this evident in many of my posts. You incorrectly quoted me as having said that there were absolutely no mountains 4000 years ago when I really implied that they were not as high, there is a major difference.

"Once again let me ask:  If evolution is so wrong, why does no one come up with a better theory that better accomodates all the evidence and explains everyhing that the ToE does and more?  Does no one want a nobel prize and fame forever?  Oh wait, I remember.  The creationists have a better explanation, but they're being held down by "the man".  Their "Unified Theory of "God-can-do-what-he-wants-so-don't-qestion-or-you'll-go-to-hell-and-no-one-wants-to-go-to-hell-I'll-pray-for-you-poor-sinners" and Stuff" theory."

Deceptive. I never said, nor any creationist I have ever come into contact with, that if you do not believe in creation you go to hell.


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 2:04 PM on April 8, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

first off, your evidences:
1) no erosion at contact points-You'll have to clarify this for me, as Demon provided a detailed breakdown of the strata and it seemed pretty obvious to me that there had been quite a bit of erosion.
2)C14 content in diamonds-one again, where is a link to this study?  This is now the 4th (at least) time I've asked for this, and I have yet to see it
3)He in zircons-as I said before, anomalous data from an incomplete study done under questionable conditions.

Yep, tons of evidence here.
I never said, nor any creationist I have ever come into contact with, that if you do not believe in creation you go to hell.

I'll grant you that was a shot, and I apologize.  You've never said that.  But if you believe that there aren't quite a few creationists who do, you need to get out more


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 2:17 PM on April 8, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: But if you believe that there aren't quite a few creationists who do, you need to get out more

If you can show me where AiG or ICR adhere to this, it will be the last time I ever take them seriously I assure you.


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 11:58 AM on April 9, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Directly from the ICR website:

(3) There are also many who profess to be Christians but will eventually be sent to the lake of fire. "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy [that is, not only from the final book of the Bible, but in context, the words of Scripture as a whole], God shall take away his part out of the book of life . . ." (Revelation 22:19). In addition to these sober words of warning to those who would tamper with the inspired words of the Bible, it was also Jesus who said: "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? . . . and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Matthew 7:22-23).

Only a few of the many difficulties with the various accommodationist theories have been discussed, but even these-have shown that it is impossible to devise a legitimate means of harmonizing the Bible with evolution. We must conclude, therefore, that if the Bible is really the Word of God (as its writers allege and as we believe) then evolution and its geological age-system must be completely false. Since the Bible cannot be reinterpreted to correlate with evolution, Christians must diligently proceed to correlate the facts of science so with the Bible.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-184a.htm

http://icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-005.htm

(Edited by Apoapsis 4/9/2004 at 2:23 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 2:21 PM on April 9, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey Young earth toad, all your points are getting shot down quicker than you can make them!  You're doing so poorly that you've resorted to your old "parroting" routine with nothing to back it up!  Pathetic!!

But we know that high mountains did not exist, your assertion that terrain was not more level has no basis in reality, you're making it up to try and support your myth, simple as that!

From here:Everest

"Everest was formed about 60 million years ago
Elevation: 29,035 (8850m)-found to be 6' higher in 1999
Mt. Everest rises a few milimeters each year due to geological forces "

Mt. Everest rises a few millimeters a year, 6000 years ago it would still have been much too high to be covered by a flood.  Where's your evidence to refute this point or are you going to cut and run like you did about continental sprint?

Ok, so not only do you not understand creation, you don't understand what a circular argument is! No there is not enough water to cover the tallest mountain, there was enough water to cover the highest mountain 6000 years ago.

Since I do understand what a circular arguement is, you've provided no evidence to the contrary, you're wrong again.  And since I haven't been argueing against creation, just creationISM, you're wrong again.  And since I provided evidence of mountains being too tall to be covered by a flood 6000 years ago, you're wrong again!

Don't be absurd! Evolutionism was disproved over 200 years ago.

Well, Darwin didn't even propse the theory of evolution until 150 years ago, so ONCE again, your wrong.

Important Note: Notice how all I have to is change the words around (save the spelling errors).

Yeah, it's easy when you don't have to back up any of your points with facts, you can say anything you want, your problem is supporting them with evidence, something you haven't done yet!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:02 PM on April 9, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis quoted, "(3) There are also many who profess to be Christians but will eventually be sent to the lake of fire. "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy [that is, not only from the final book of the Bible, but in context, the words of Scripture as a whole], God shall take away his part out of the book of life . . ." (Revelation 22:19). In addition to these sober words of warning to those who would tamper with the inspired words of the Bible, it was also Jesus who said: "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? . . . and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Matthew 7:22-23)."

My question to that would be, how do we know that they are reffering to those that believe in evolution? I haven't seen anywhere in that were it has clearly said "Those who do not believe in the literal interpretation of genesis will go to hell."


Demon38: Hey Young earth toad

Why hey Demon38!

Demon38: all your points are getting shot down quicker than you can make them!

I don't know about that, I can make points pretty quick.

Demon38: You're doing so poorly that you've resorted to your old "parroting" routine with nothing to back it up!  Pathetic!!

An evolutionist said it, therefore it must be taken immediately without any scrutiny. By golly that means that I am doing poorly.

Demon38: Mt. Everest rises a few millimeters a year, 6000 years ago it would still have been much too high to be covered by a flood.  Where's your evidence to refute this point or are you going to cut and run like you did about continental sprint?

From here: Continental Drift

"Evolutionary geologists say that the drift has always been exceedingly slow, so that the entire process has taken about 100 million years. Such estimates, however, are based entirely upon uniformitarian assumptions, especially as applied to the dating of sea-floor sediments by the potassium-argon technique. These assumptions can easily be shown to be wrong so that the actual sediments are quite compatible with a very recent origin.

"The great actual amount of drifting could not have been more than 4,000 miles, and this could have been accomplished easily in, say, 1,000 years (an average of less than 2 feet per hour)."


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 5:28 PM on April 9, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

YET, are you handicapped or what?!?  
If you can show me where AiG or ICR adhere to this, it will be the last time I ever take them seriously I assure you.


Apoapsis responds to your challenge, and what do you do?  Why, you backpedal and dissemble, the whole time ignoring the obvious, then respond with some more insipid nonsense from ICR.  Pathetic.  What tiny amount of respect you had garnered from me for your claim that you would stop using these sources if your challenge was met is now totally gone, and you have further proven the depths creationists will sink to.

Continental drift of 2 feet per hour?!?  Hopefully no one fell asleep near a plate boundary.  Waking up with 20 feet of ocean seperating you and your family would be pretty bad, wouldn't you say?

(Edited by TQ 4/9/2004 at 6:02 PM).


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 5:48 PM on April 9, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: Apoapsis responds to your challenge, and what do you do?  Why, you backpedal and dissemble, the whole time ignoring the obvious, then respond with some more insipid nonsense from ICR.  Pathetic.  What tiny amount of respect you had garnered from me for your claim that you would stop using these sources if your challenge was met is now totally gone, and you have further proven the depths creationists will sink to.

No, I will hold to my word. I fully understood Apoapsis' quotations. And no, I am not backpedalling, only quoting something that does not agree with demon38's quote.

I only want to know how Apoapsis' quote confirms without any doubt that ICR believes that those who do not take genesis *LITERALLY* are damned. If so, I don't want anything more to do with them.


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 6:44 PM on April 9, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't know about that, I can make points pretty quick.

Yeah, but they're all getting torn apart...

An evolutionist said it, therefore it must be taken immediately without any scrutiny. By golly that means that I am doing poorly.

Scrutinize away!  I've provided references for all the points I've made, references from the experts in bilogy, geology, etc....


"Evolutionary geologists say that the drift has always been exceedingly slow, so that the entire process has taken about 100 million years. Such estimates, however, are based entirely upon uniformitarian assumptions, especially as applied to the dating of sea-floor sediments by the potassium-argon technique. These assumptions can easily be shown to be wrong so that the actual sediments are quite compatible with a very recent origin.

Ah! I see your problem!  You use dogmatic religious sites for your information, information that is wrong.  On the other hand, I reference real scientific sources, the people who actually do the research.  How many geologists does IRC have doing field research?  From the Rutgers geology department: Rutgers

"By Late Triassic time (~235 Ma) and possibly earlier, this landmass began to break apart, and the continents began to drift toward their present-day positions over the last 200 million years (m.y.). "

From the USGS:USGS

"From about 280-230 million years ago, (Late Paleozoic Era until the Late Triassic) the continent we now know as North America was continuous with Africa, South America, and Europe. Pangea first began to be torn apart when a three-pronged fissure grew between Africa, South America, and North America. Rifting began as magma welled up through the weakness in the crust, creating a volcanic rift zone. Volcanic eruptions spewed ash and volcanic debris across the landscape as these severed continent-sized fragments of Pangea diverged. The gash between the spreading continents gradually grew to form a new ocean basin, the Atlantic. "

How about the breakup of Gondwanaland?  From Connecticut State University:CSU

"Fade back some 180 million years to the breakup of Gondwanaland, a super-continent, or giant landmass, in the Southern Hemisphere, from which South America, Africa, peninsular India, Australia and Antarctica ultimately were formed."

All the people doing the research say the same thing.  IRC, which does zero research and is locked into one erroneous explaination and ignores all evidence that disagrees with that explaination, is simply wrong.  And you still haven't given us one shed of evidence to change our minds!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:42 PM on April 9, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Did you guys miss me?  I have been out of town lately and haven't had a chance to post.  Looks like I have some catching up to do.

But we know that high mountains existed, your assertion that terrain was more level has no basis in reality, you're making it up to try and support your myth, simple as that!

6000 years ago there were tall mountains, Everest was almost as high as it is now.  50 million years ago the top of Mt. Everest was the bottom of the Tethys sea


Here is a PERFECT example of what I am talking about.  Here are the FACTS:

1) Mt. Everest is now a mountain
2) Mt. Everest wasn't always a mountain
3) Mt. Everest has marine fossils (suggesting that it was covered by water at one time)

This is a perfect example of what I have been talking about all along.  These are the FACTS of the situation.  Creationist and Evolutionists both take these facts, apply what they know about the history of the earth to it, and arrive at distinctly different conclusions.  Evolutions keep saying "there is no evidence for creation" and creationists keep saying "there is no evidece for evolution".  Here is a perfect example of how we look at the same exact evidece.  We then look through the lens of "what we believe".  In evolution's case it is the lense of secular humanism.  In creation's case, it is the Bible.  Our presuppositions about the "missing facts" are filled in by our beliefs.  Science is about logic and observation.  When you weren't there 6000 - or 3 billion - years ago, you have to use logic and observation, to fill in the gaps based on your original theory.  

Anyways, thanks once again for responding to the facts with attempted insults and blusters.

I feel I should apologize.  My intention was not to insult you.  I realize that the phrase "what you know" was probably a poor choice of words.  My intention was to point out the error in your post.  You stated an incorrect pre-supposition about the bible, having not analized the facts of the matter.  I was simply trying to show you that your pre-supposition (and therefore the following evidence) about the Bible saying it was a mountain was incorrect.  Again, I apologize if I offended you personally, it was not my intention.

We're not argueing against Creation

What basis do you found your belief in creation?  I thought evolution taught that we are all a product of random chance over time?

...to come off as an ignorant know-nothing who has no real evidence

Good job proving his point.  Someone who uses those arguments does make themselves sound unintelligent and unable to reason and express logically their position.  His post was most likely meant to satirically point that out.   Also it strikes me as odd that you would seemingly take such offense to me saying "stick with what you know" and infer a disparraging remark, then come out and blatently make disparraging remarks yourself.  You were correct when you gave us the impression that was an inappropriate way to discuss, however.

The creationists have a better explanation, but they're being held down by "the man".

I don't think you understand the creationist position.  The Bible says in Gen7:11 -

Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Meaning water came up from inside the earth and aslo under the ocean.  We believe this is the cataclysmic event that first divided the continents.  They then continued to drift (as they do even now).

You call creationism the "Unified Theory of "God-can-do-what-he-wants-so-don't-qestion-or-you'll-go-to-hell-and-no-one-wants-to-go-to-hell-I'll-pray-for-you-poor-sinners" and Stuff".  The Bible makes clear in John 3:16 that the only way to avoid hell is to believe in Christ.  It also makes clear that your actions give away your true beliefs (James chapter 2).  I would submit for your examination that evolution is the "unified theory of how-everything-came-to-be-without-God".  Like I said... if God created the universe then his rules are true.  If man came about by chance, then we can set our own rules.  If God exists, then we must believe in him to be saved from eternal damnation.  If he does not exist, we are free to believe whatever we want without risking eternal damnation.

I provided evidence of mountains being too tall to be covered by a flood 6000 years ago

Your so called "evidence" was stating that the Bible/creationists says that it formed 6000 years ago but that evolution stating it formed 60 million years ago.  Actually, you have a couple of inconsistancies and incorrect assumptios that I would like to point out.  Firstly, we believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago.  Secondly Noah and the flood came about 1000 years later.  So the flood was 5000 years ago.  

You say as evidence against the flood that it only happened 6000 years ago when, according to evolution, everest was too tall.  So basically what you are sayhing is that according to evolution creation can't be true.  

However, if you use logic here, you could see that if creationists believe the earth is only 6000 years old (as the geneologies from Adam onward in the Bible would seem to indicate), the timetable between beginning of the world and raising of Everest is on a scale of present back to 6000 years, not present back to 3.5 billion years.  Your evidence is based on your pre-supposition of the age of the earth.  Again, this is another example of looking through the lense of evolution as opposed to looking through the lense of creation when interpreting the same facts.  

Why, you backpedal and dissemble, the whole time ignoring the obvious, then respond with some more insipid nonsense from ICR.

Perhaps this is our own fault for not first communicating a good solid foundation for what we believe to you before discussing more intricate matters of scripture.  As I said before, your heaven/hell status is entirely based on whether or not you believe in Jesus.  Genesis gives you a clear foundation on which to logically deduce that Jesus is who he says he is, and that you do actually need him.  Because Adam sinned, death was introduced into the earth.  Therefore, Christ had to come and pay the penalty for death in our place.  Death is literally define as separation from God.  God is life.  God is eternal.  Before death (before the earth was separated from God) there were no sickness, disease, or death.  In christ's redemption on the cross, he provided a way to restore connection, communication, to God.  You, then have a choice - accept his gift of salvation and believe in him (Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life - he that believes in me shall have everlasting life - life being literally defined as being one with God).  Knowing this as FACTS about Christianity, please go back and read that text again.  You will see that you cannot infer that evolutionary though will send you to hell.

references from the experts in bilogy, geology...

And we often don't dispute the science of these people... only the pre-suppositions and interpretations.  Such as was the case with trying to "fit" creaton theory into the evolutionary timescale.

I reference real scientific sources  

For a good time you should go to the nearest college or university and take a geology ccourse on the radiometric datign methods used today.  You will find that in order for those to work, you have to make some assumptions.

http://www.radiometric-dating.com/

A quick quip from that page:  "Carbon Dating: What Do The Experts Think?
Carbon Dating can best be summed-up with the following statement by T. Save-Sodebergh and I.U. Olsson (Institute of Egyptology and Institute of Physics, respectively, University of Uppsala, Sweden) in their publication, C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology in Radiocarbon: "If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date' we just drop it." This illustrates the fact that accepted carbon dates are not necessarily accurate dates -- they are merely selected dates. "It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted" (Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon, Ages in Error," Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, No.3, 1981, pp.9, 29).

Just an example of trusting scientific textbooks to give you all the facts.  They are not designed to give you all the facts... only the ones that agree with their hypothesis.  It's good for forming opinion, but not a replacement for actual study, learning, logic, or obervation.  I doubt any of you would disagree with that statement.

Well, Darwin didn't even propse the theory of evolution until 150 years ago, so ONCE again, your wrong.

Interesting how you will take the written word of someone who wasn't there (Darwin 150 years ago).  Yet take the written word of someone who was there (God - the Bible being his written word) at the foundation of the earth and immediately you throw that out.  What your saying is that you would rather believe the word of a fallible man, than the word of an infallible God.  You would rather subscribe to someone's theory which has to be revised and rewritten over the last 150 years than to listen to GOd's word which hasn't changed in thousands of years.  





 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 11:41 AM on April 10, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Our presuppositions about the "missing facts" are filled in by our beliefs.  Science is about logic and observation.

Correct, and logic tells us that rock does not shoot 5 miles into the air at rocket speed.  Instead, logic and observation tell us that mountain building is a slow process.  This would also explain why the peoples of the areas surrounding the himalayas don't have any history of the mountains forming.  They've always been there (as far as people are concerned)
I thought evolution taught that we are all a product of random chance over time?

So, what you're telling us is that you are dead set against a scientific theory, one without which not much else makes sense in many disciplines, but you don't know what it is?!?  Here, let me help:
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

or, if that's confusing:
Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

or how about:
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

Got it?  That is all evolution is
If God exists, then we must believe in him to be saved from eternal damnation.  If he does not exist, we are free to believe whatever we want without risking eternal damnation.
In the end, every creationist comes down to bringing up this argument.  Basically, "If I'm right, then I go to heaven.  If I'm wrong, I'm dead.  But if you're wrong...  Do you really want to take that chance?"
Your so called "evidence" was stating that the Bible/creationists says that it formed 6000 years ago but that evolution stating it formed 60 million years ago.

Evolution says nothing about the formation of mountains.  Geology says that they were formed 60 MYA, and since that explanation is the more plausible and is backed up by evidence...
Your evidence is based on your pre-supposition of the age of the earth.

No, see a presupposition is when you decide something is true before knowing the facts.  This is what you are doing.  You "know" the bible is literal truth, so you contort the evidence to fit.  Science tells us the earth is 4.5 BYO.  Various observations and calculations support this.  That means the earth is 4.5 BYO, no matter what I choose to believe.  If evidence came along tomorrow that proved the earth was 50 years old, well, then I guess the earth is 50 years old, though it would have to 1) Be extremely convincing evidence in order to explain that large a difference, and 2) It would have to adequately explain the previous errors in the dating methods of the earth.  Creationism does neither of these.
Perhaps this is our own fault for not first communicating a good solid foundation for what we believe to you before discussing more intricate matters of scripture.

Perhaps I can make this clear for you:
YET says:
If you can show me where AiG or ICR adhere to this [anyone who does not believe in creationism is going to hell], it will be the last time I ever take them seriously I assure you.

Apoapsis responds with:
(3) There are also many who profess to be Christians but will eventually be sent to the lake of fire. "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy [that is, not only from the final book of the Bible, but in context, the words of Scripture as a whole], God shall take away his part out of the book of life . . ." (Revelation 22:19).

So, if you try to take away from the bible, you are not a true christian and will be sent to hell, according to ICR
We must conclude, therefore, that if the Bible is really the Word of God (as its writers allege and as we believe) then evolution and its geological age-system must be completely false.

If you believe in evolution, you are saying the bible is false, meaning you are taking away from the bible, meaning you are going to hell.  This is what the ICR believes, so challenge met.
Still with me here?  This is the slimey part.  Immediately after Apoapsis posted this, YET responded with this:
My question to that would be, how do we know that they are reffering to those that believe in evolution? I haven't seen anywhere in that were it has clearly said "Those who do not believe in the literal interpretation of genesis will go to hell."

Dissembling and back pedaling.  He then, just to make sure we have no respect left for him at all, wuotes from ICR, which he said he would never do again if we met his challenge.
I reference real scientific sources  
In answer to this assertion by demon, you proceed to post some more nonsense from YEC's.  I'll say this slowly: YEC's wouldn't know science if it bit them on the ass.  Just because something does not give you the dates you want does not make it faulty.  Try these if you want actual science on radiometric dating.  
http://www.google.com/custom?q=radiometric+dating&sitesearch=www.talkorigins.org

I fail to understand how sitting in an armchair saying "radiometric dating doesn't work, the dates are all wrong" qualifies as science and invalidates a hundred years of research and solid results.  Yet that is what YEC "researchers" would have us believe.

Interesting how you will take the written word of someone who wasn't there (Darwin 150 years ago).  

No one is taking Darwin's word for anything.  In fact, many of his ideas have been proven wrong.  However, we are taking the word of evidence from many, many varied disciplines, and that evidence all says that Darwin was onto something.
You would rather subscribe to someone's theory which has to be revised and rewritten over the last 150 years than to listen to GOd's word which hasn't changed in thousands of years.  

In short, yes.  To explain:  Science is constantly changing conclusions and revising theories as new evidence is discovered.  Science is looking for knowledge, not ultimate answers.  Religion already has the ultimate answers, and YEC's are scrabbling to find the evidence to fit this.  See the difference?  Science: searching for knowledge, ever changing, adaptable, fluid.  Religon-has the answers, not searching for evidence, unchanging

Two hundred years of science, common sense, and logic (which you claim as your own but never seem to use) say that creationism is not true.  That doesn't mean that the current ToE is the absolute truth either.  I will be the first to say that I would be very surprised if there is not further tinkering of the theory as new avenues of research are opened up.







(Edited by TQ 4/10/2004 at 1:45 PM).


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 1:40 PM on April 10, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here is a PERFECT example of what I am talking about.  Here are the FACTS:

1) Mt. Everest is now a mountain
2) Mt. Everest wasn't always a mountain
3) Mt. Everest has marine fossils (suggesting that it was covered by water at one time)


Yet you ignore all other evidence because it doesn't suit you!  Mt. Everest is a mountain now, it began to form 50 million years ago.  We know this because of multiple lines of evidence, tectonic plate movement rates, paleomagnetism, fossil evidence, just to name a few.  So all evidence says the Himilayas formed 50 million years ago.  Geologists are taking all the facts into account, creationists are not.  Creationists interpretation of this event is clearly wrong.  Yes we know Mt. Everest was not always a mountain, we KNOW it began forming 50 million years ago.
Mt. everest has marine fossils on it, these marine fossils could NOT have been placed there by a massive flood, we don't see a mishmash of marine life that a giant flood would produce, we see fossils of a shallow sea floor ONLY.  Again, like most creationists, you pick and choose the data that at first glance seems to support your myth and ignore all the rest!  Your presupposition is demonstratably wrong, you have yet to show how proffesional geologists are in error!
From here, the United States Geological Survey:USGS

About 225 million years ago, India was a large island still situated off the Australian coast, and a vast ocean (called Tethys Sea) separated India from the Asian continent. When Pangaea broke apart about 200 million years ago, India began to forge northward. By studying the history -- and ultimately the closing-- of the Tethys, scientists have reconstructed India's northward journey. About 80 million years ago, India was located roughly 6,400 km south of the Asian continent, moving northward at a rate of about 9 m a century. When India rammed into Asia about 40 to 50 million years ago, its northward advance slowed by about half. The collision and associated decrease in the rate of plate movement are interpreted to mark the beginning of the rapid uplift of the Himalayas."

All the facts line up, all the experts agree, the Himilaya mountains were too tall to be covered by water, Noah's flood is simply a myth, it never happened, at least, a flood that covered the entire world!

You say as evidence against the flood that it only happened 6000 years ago when, according to evolution, everest was too tall.  So basically what you are sayhing is that according to evolution creation can't be       true.

You're still laboring under a false premise.  Science doesn't say anything about  CREATION,
if God created thru natural means, science can neither confirm nor deny this and it doesn't.
As I've said numerous times, most Christians worldwide accept an old earth, no golbal flood and evolution.  What science does disprove, and disprove very effectively is CREATIONISM.
This is the falsified theory that the earth is young (10000 - 6000 years old), that there was a global flood and evolution does not take place.  

For a good time you should go to the nearest college or university and take a geology ccourse on the radiometric datign methods used today.  You will find that in order for those to work, you have to make some assumptions.

First of all, radiometric dating lines up with all other dating methods, it concurs with ice core samples, lake varves, fossilized coral reef clocks, fossil tree ring dating, to name a few.
Second, let's see what some expert sources say about radiometric dating...

EarlhamCollege

"Since the middle of the twentieth century, radiometric dating techniques have helped geologists and archaeologists give certain samples a specific and concrete age. Before this and other 'absolute' dating methods, scientists could only determine the relative or chronological ages of samples. Thanks to the consistency of natural radioactive decay, science has found a measuring tool for seemingly unmeasurable amounts of time."

From the USGS:
USGSI

" The potassium-argon method can be used on rocks as young as a few thousand years as well as on the oldest rocks known. Potassium is found in most rock-forming minerals, the half-life of its radioactive isotope potassium-40 is such that measurable quantities of argon (daughter) have accumulated in potassium-bearing minerals of nearly all ages, and the amounts of potassium and argon isotopes can be measured accurately, even in very small quantities. Where feasible, two or more methods of analysis are used on the same specimen of rock to confirm the results."

Notice at the end it says "Where feasible, two or more methods of analysis are used on the same specimen of rock to confirm results."  Now how could 2 different radiometric dating techniques, on 2 diferent types of radioactive isotopes, both come up with the same wrong dates???  It just isn't conceivable!  Add to this the fact that many of these dates are checked with other non radioactive dating methods and the conclusion is inescapable, we live on a very (4.5 billion year) old earth.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:42 PM on April 10, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: This would also explain why the peoples of the areas surrounding the himalayas don't have any history of the mountains forming.  They've always been there (as far as people are concerned)

Or it could be that there was a cataclysmic event larger than any earthquake or volcano explosion where all the land mass that existed tore violently and water came up from under the earth when the earth was covered by Noah's flood.  When the 8 people got off the Ark, it took a little while before some of these 8 people migrated far enough to be in the area of the himolayas.  In the fluctuational state the earth was in following the most devastating geologic cataclysm the world has ever known, the changes to th earth would have been more rapid until some semblance of an equilibrium was reached where it was stable again.  By the time the first settlers of the himalayas moved into the area, Everest had sufficient time to become a good deal what it is now.  Of course these people had no clue living there and observing it that it continued to raise.

I find it interesting that you count the history of the people there as evidence, yet the historical accounts of most civilizations have some sort of Flood story, and it is scoffed at simply because it agrees with the Bible.

TQ: So, what you're telling us is that you are dead set against a scientific theory, one without which not much else makes sense in many disciplines, but you don't know what it is?!?

I am telling you I am set against an unnecessary scientific theory (evolution).  Creation Science makes sense of EVERYTHING just as well (and in many cases better) than evolution does.  For example, evolution has "missing links" and "gaps".  Creation has none of these (edit - none may be too broad - and it is certainly a generalization - I'll say creation has very few of these gaps, whereas evolution is chalked full - just look at plants for example).  We see the correct history laid out in proper sequence in the Bible.  Forturnately absolutely none of the facts in geology, biology, anthropology, etc disagree with what the Bible says, so we can rest assured that it is truth.  (evolutionists interpret the facts differently and often come to different conclusions as they look through the lens of evolution at the facts)

You see - as is always the case, creation and evolution use the same facts.  Creationists believe that the earth was created by God 6000 years ago.  Evolutionists believe the earth was created by a chance 3 or 4 billion years ago.  Lets look at the evidence shall we?  Do we have fossils today?  Do we have people today?  Do we have animals today?  Do we live on earth today?  It would seem creationists and evolutionists do indeed have the same set of facts.  As I said, for the creationist, God tells us how to interpret those facts through the Bible.  For the evolutionist, secular humanism tells them how to interpret those same facts.  Same facts - different influence effecting the interpretation.  So then, the actual difference between creation and evolution is which you choose to believe (they have the same facts).  Therefore, it is clear that evolution is not science, it is a belief.  A way of doing things.  It is tradition of thinking.  Wow - dictionary.com offers this as one of the definitions of religion:  A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.   Well that sounds like an evolutionist to me.  

TQ: Science tells us that the earth is 4.5 billion years old

Using "scientific" methods like carbon dating?  Let me show you that quote from the carbon dating website again:  

A quick quip from that page:  "Carbon Dating: What Do The Experts Think?
Carbon Dating can best be summed-up with the following statement by T. Save-Sodebergh and I.U. Olsson (Institute of Egyptology and Institute of Physics, respectively, University of Uppsala, Sweden) in their publication, C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology in Radiocarbon: "If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date' we just drop it." This illustrates the fact that accepted carbon dates are not necessarily accurate dates -- they are merely selected dates. "It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted" (Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon, Ages in Error," Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, No.3, 1981, pp.9, 29).

This evidence shows that evolutionists do exactly what you claim they do not.  Data and "facts" are throw out that do not support the original hypothesis.  Creationists and evolutionists use the same facts and same science to arrive at their conclusions.  In arriving at the conclusions, the interpretations and pre-suppositions are different.  But the facts and the science is equal.

After all, no one was there to observe it, right?  Wrong.  God was there and he tells us in his word how it happened.  I would rather base my pre-suppositions on an infallible word from God than on the fallible word of man (such as Darwin).

TQ: So, if you try to take away from the bible, you are not a true christian and will be sent to hell, according to ICR

I don't see evolutionists adding verses or chapters to the Bible (except for maybe Theistic evolutionists) ... they simply don't believe it's true in the first place.  In that, lies their condemning sin.  If you don't believe Genesis is true, how can you believe the rest of the Bible is true?  If you don't believe the Bible, how can you believe in Christ and accept salvation.  You don't believe... and you go to hell.  Evolutionism is not the reason you go to hell... it is a symptom of your disbelief in God and his word... not accepting salvation and not believing in christ is what sends you to hell.

An evolutionist can still be saved from hell.  All you have to do is believe.  It may take time to undo your brainwashing, but it doesn't mean you are excluded from heaven.   We are saved by faith (so that no man can earn it) through grace.  There is grace for those who do not understand.  Revelation of the word is given to those who believe and ask for it.

TQ: YEC's wouldn't know science if it bit them on the ass.

This is an evolutionists version of evidence.  An irrational argument.  

TQ:  Two hundred years of science, common sense, and logic (which you claim as your own but never seem to use) say that creationism is not true.

Like I said before.  We all have the same exact facts, yet we come to such different conclusions.  You continue to whistle the tune of "creationism has no evidence, and is improbably or inplausible".  I have shown you that in any instance, it is both plausible and probable.  It confirms the Bible to be true.  Yet, you refuse to think outside your evolutionary box and look at it through the lense of creation.  

If I look through the lense of evolution (and assume that it's true) the world does indeed make sense.  But if I take off my evolutionary beer goggles and put on the lense of creationism, I can see that the world makes even more sense, and I know I haven't been cheated out of knowledge by a suppression of truth... and more so because not only does the physical world and universe make sense.... but theology makes sense... morality makes sense... God makes sense... christianity makes sense... religion makes sense.

Interesting how evolutionists are unable to take off your evolutionary lense and peer through the lense of creation at the same facts and evidence.

For example, when Demon said that his evidence against a global flood was the water couldn't cover the tallest mountain.  Now he knew "at one time" everest was low but he applied his evolutionary lense to the biblical timetable in saying the flood happened thousands of years ago and everest was only low millions of years ago.

Demon:  Yet you ignore all other evidence because it doesn't suit you!  Mt. Everest is a mountain now, it began to form 50 million years ago.  We know this because of multiple lines of evidence, tectonic plate movement rates, paleomagnetism, fossil evidence, just to name a few.  So all evidence says the Himilayas formed 50 million years ago.

Havn't ignored that evidence at all.  I have, however made a more correct interpretation of that same evidence which shows a clearly plausible explanation.  I have applied what I know about the history of the planet (that it wasn't formed until only 6000 years ago) and have updated my interpretation of paleomagnetism, and fossil evidence.  As to plate tectonics, I firmly believe science is absolutely right on with plate rates.  But I don't think the current calculations take the force of the global flood into account when calculating the speed at which they separated 5000 years ago compared to the speed they have leveled off at in the present.  Think about it - as the flood happened there was a horrible tearing tha litterally ripped the land apart to form continents.  All at once the entire earth was rent.  Wow... what force... .what power.  Can you imagine the force that caused two land masses to shove together so much that the tallest mountain in the world would form?  When the entire earth was covered in water, that must have exerted tremendous weight and force on the land below (not to mention the change in atmospheric pressure.  This caused massive pressure changes on the plates as they moved very quickly mabe even at several feet per hour.  All the while the tear getting greater and greater.  The displaced land caused a new place for the water to go, and as it did the forces of even greater water amounts running off the land into the tear put more pressure on the plates.  Logic says that as the earth begain to spread, the force of all th water running to it would cause the tear to happen more quickly, until it would eventually reach a sort of equilibrium.  Today we see the plate rates moving at an equilibriated rate we might expect from a constant pressure.  Of course all the horrible quaking and shaking was avoided as the inhabitants of the Ark floated safely above the water covering the earth for months.  Good thing the ark was designed to stay upright even if tilted at a 60 degrees - it was probably a pretty violent and rough ride.  

Demon: You're still laboring under a false premise.

I would say the opposite is true.  It is you who is operating under a false premise.  The guy who was there... the creator of it all... told me how it actually happened in his word to all mankind.  Fortunately, all of my interpretations of the facts happen to line up perfectly - and do you know why they line up perfectly with the Bible?  Because I started with the premise that the Bible is true.  Then science confirmed it for me.

I get the distinct imprerssion that you are the type of person that believes pretty much whatever you are told about evolution.  Your evidences are usually a copy paste recanting from whatever your evolutionary history book tells you.  Your evidence sounds like "The story as told by Evolution".  Look here ... my geology text book says it was 60 million years ago... see proof of evolution!  Those text books are re-written all the time because of the mistakes their authors find in them.  On the other hand, the creationists textbook has stayed the same.  The author knows he got it right the first time (I, of course, am referring to the Bible).

That EarlHam college was interesting.  They seem to be in line with the quaker point of view (you know the guys that ride in horse buggies because they believe that technology is evil).  Look at their mission statement.  This undergraduate school claims carbon 14 dating to be an absolute dating method.  Then they link (on their problems with carbon dating page) to The university of North Carolina (which I imagine does have graduate programs) for reasons to refute the validity of radiometric dating.  That page says

""It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is not absolutely reliable long-term radiological "clock". The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists... [47]".  

I guess it's a question of who do you believe.

One of the major assumptions you have to make about any radiometric dating method is the amount of radiometric material the item started with.  Now these calculations are based on today's current rate of decay.  You basically say "how much is here today.. how fast is it decaying... here is how much we summerise was in the past"  However, it is also very true that there is a very high concentration of radiometric material inside and under the earth.  If a global flood did happen, and the earth was torn as the Bible says, and the fountains of the deep did spring up that would have carried this larger concentration of radiometric material with it to the surface.  It then covered the surface and settleed into the rock layers, fossil beds, etc all over the earth as all the strata were laid down by water (in varying degrees depending on factors such as flow, depth, structure etc - basically depending on the conditions of the area) all over the earth.  This sudden increase in radiometric particles would DEFINATELY skew the calculations we use to assume how much of these radiometric particles we started with at creation.  

I supposed it's probably not a co-incidence that the life span of human beings went from 700-900 years to about 100-120 years about that same time... at least within a generation.  The more radiation and "free radicals" there are, the more damage to the genetic structure (aka loss of genetic information).  Not to mention that the 8 people on the Ark only accounted for a portion of the genes Adam was orginally created with.  Punnett demonstrated this concept with his famous Punnett squares.

Demon: Now how could 2 different radiometric dating techniques, on 2 diferent types of radioactive isotopes, both come up with the same wrong dates???

As I have already shared, all the assumptions made about the amount of radiometric particles that came after the flood are probably incorrect.  About the only thing that radiometric dating could truely prove is that items are from approximately the same area or period of time.... adding an actual date isn't going to be accurate with radiometric dating alone.  

Now I have given you a several reasonable alternate explanations to several items and events.  Some you proabably were not prepared for or might never have heard before.  Do you feel a little cheated that you were never at least presented this information so that you could make a logical choice??  One thing is for sure, however - you shoud probably change your view of "there is no evidence to support creation" to "we don't agree with the interpretation of the evidence given by creationists".  As i have thoroughly demonstrated in this thread... there is a huge amount of evidence... much of which I am sure you are not aware.  But just because you are not aware of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  You have simply had a 1 sided education all your life.



(Edited by Gup20 4/10/2004 at 7:45 PM).
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 7:14 PM on April 10, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This evidence shows that evolutionists do exactly what you claim they do not.  Data and "facts" are throw out that do not support the original hypothesis.  Creationists and evolutionists use the same facts and same science to arrive at their conclusions.  In arriving at the conclusions, the interpretations and pre-suppositions are different.  But the facts and the science is equal.

Where do you show evolutionists throw out dates if they don't concurr????  T. Save-Sodebergh and I.U. Olsson  are NOT evolutionists!  They are egyptologists, C-14 dating is only good back about 50,000 years.  Show us any geologists who thow out dates!  
From here, the United States Geological Survey:  USGS

"The potassium-argon method can be used on rocks as young as a few thousand years as well as on the oldest rocks known. Potassium is found in most rock-forming minerals, the half-life of its radioactive isotope potassium-40 is such that measurable quantities of argon (daughter) have accumulated in potassium-bearing minerals of nearly all ages, and the amounts of potassium and argon isotopes can be measured accurately, even in very small quantities. Where feasible, two or more methods of analysis are used on the same specimen of rock to confirm the results."

Two or more methods are used to produce dates for samples.  It is simply impossible for 2 or more different radioactive isotopes to give the same erroneous dates for a sample!  Nice try trying to sneak archaeologists into a discussion of geology.

I get the distinct imprerssion that you are the type of person that believes pretty much whatever you are told about evolution.  Your evidences are usually a copy paste recanting from whatever your evolutionary history book tells you.  Your evidence sounds like "The story as told by Evolution".  Look here ... my geology text book says it was 60 million years ago... see proof of evolution!  Those text books are re-written all the time because of the mistakes their authors find in them.  On the other hand, the creationists textbook has stayed the same.  The author knows he got it right the first time (I, of course, am referring to the Bible).

You've got to be kidding me!  Evolution and a 4.5 billion year old earth are virtual facts.  Not only that they make perfect sense when viewing the evidence.  What flies against all evidence, all common sense, the entire scientific community is the lunatic fringe that insists that a book written 4000 years ago is more scientifically acurate than modern science!  Please Gup20, live in your own world, believe wha tyou want, but don't infect the rest of us with your lunacy!  Now my impression of you is someone who is teetering on the brink of your faith, it's so fragile that any common sense will send you over the edge, so you shut your mind to reality, and repeat your mantra, "science is wrong, the bible is right, science is wrong, the bible is right,..." ad infinitum.  I listen to the experts and understand what they say, which is obviously more than you do.

From the Society of Neuroscience:

" The debate in America surrounding the teaching of Evolution in science classrooms began with the Creationist claim that the Darwinian concept of natural selection was incorrect, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence in support of it. Creationism, a theory attempting to explain origins of life through supernatural causes, as opposed to scientific ones, failed. Intelligent Design, a revised Creationist effort to claim scientific legitimacy, purports to present a highly disputed philosophical theory as valid scientific theory. Differing from Creationism, ID is not directly supernaturally based. Intelligent design cites, as one of its core principles, “intelligent causes” as the explanation of the complexity of biological structures. Attempting to become credible in the face of Creationism’s failure, ID is devoid of potential to create sound scientific results and explanations. Therefore, it would, as its proponents intend, subserve the goals of the Creationist effort."

From the SOCIETY FOR INTEGRATIVE AND COMPARATIVE BIOLOGY:

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Insofar as the life sciences are critical to human health, well-being, and knowledge, evolutionary biology is and must be a fundamental component of an excellent science education. Moreover, awareness of current views concerning evolutionary history and mechanisms, including natural selection, is an essential part of modern literacy for all citizens. Excellence in education requires that teachers and students can explore, investigate, and criticize scientific ideas. However, learning and inquiry are inhibited when educators feel pressured to alter their teaching of fundamental concepts of science in response to demands external to the scientific disciplines. The Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology is committed to these principles and will support the teaching of fundamental concepts and ideas in science, including those related to evolution and the nature of scientific inquiry."

From the Paleontological Society:

"The evolution paradigm has withstood nearly 150 years of scrutiny. Although the existence of evolution has been confirmed many times, as a science evolutionary theory must continue to be open to testing. At this time, however, more fruitful inquiries address the tempo and mode of evolution, various processes involved in evolution, and driving factors for evolution. Through such inquiry, the unifying theory of evolution will become an even more powerful explanation for the history of life on Earth."







 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:59 PM on April 10, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Or it could be that there was a cataclysmic event larger than any earthquake or volcano explosion where all the land mass that existed tore violently and water came up from under the earth when the earth was covered by Noah's flood.  When the 8 people got off the Ark, it took a little while before some of these 8 people migrated far enough to be in the area of the himolayas.  In the fluctuational state the earth was in following the most devastating geologic cataclysm the world has ever known, the changes to th earth would have been more rapid until some semblance of an equilibrium was reached where it was stable again.  By the time the first settlers of the himalayas moved into the area, Everest had sufficient time to become a good deal what it is now.  Of course these people had no clue living there and observing it that it continued to raise.

So you think that Everest and the rest of the himalayas shot up at a rate of about 15-20 feet a day for the first little while, and Nobody noticed!?!  Fine, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which you have yet to produce.  Let's see it.

Creation Science makes sense of EVERYTHING just as well (and in many cases better) than evolution does.

and totally disregards fact along the way
We see the correct history laid out in proper sequence in the Bible.  Forturnately absolutely none of the facts in geology, biology, anthropology, etc disagree with what the Bible says, so we can rest assured that it is truth.

Uh, the correct history is not laid out in the bible, and virtually all the facts in geology, biology, anthropology, etc. disagree with what the bible says.  Or did you not notice that's where the evidence we've been using against you comes from?
Therefore, it is clear that evolution is not science, it is a belief.
We always come back to the this, don't we.  Whenever a creationist can't make headway in the debate, they resort to the "well, evolution is a belief, just like creationism, so we're the same!"  No, the ToE is a fact.  Keep trying.

TQ: Science tells us that the earth is 4.5 billion years old

Using "scientific" methods like carbon dating?

Once again, you show your complete and utter ignorance.  Carbon dating is only useful to about 50 000 years, so do you really think that Carbon dating would give an accurate age of the earth?

I would rather base my pre-suppositions on an infallible word from God than on the fallible word of man (such as Darwin).

Then do that, and quite annoying those of us who are interested in learning about the world without presuppositions

Some babling about saving my soul, in the midst of which he confirms Apoapsis quote, and my opinion of creationists in general

We all have the same exact facts, yet we come to such different conclusions.  You continue to whistle the tune of "creationism has no evidence, and is improbably or inplausible".  I have shown you that in any instance, it is both plausible and probable.


The difference is that evolution takes into account all the facts.  Your everest example is perfect here.  facts: everest is a mountain, everest wasn't always a mountain, the land which makes up everest was once covered with water.  Evolutionists take into account all the facts (plate tectonics, fossil evidence, paleomagnetism, radiometric dating, local histories, etc, etc, etc)  You as a creationist see seashells on top of it and say "see, noah's flood did that".  Now, what facts did you use to arrive at that conclusion?  Why, a book told you that's what happened.  As for all the examples of facts that geologists have for dating everest to about 50MYA, those are swept aside and not acknowledges except to say "They're wrong, because I know what the real truth is.  God told me!

As shown here:
I have applied what I know about the history of the planet (that it wasn't formed until only 6000 years ago) and have updated my interpretation of paleomagnetism, and fossil evidence.


Updated to what?  On what basis?  How did you arrive at these "updated" views?  What evidence supports such a change?  On what do you base the apparent age of the earth being 6K years?  evidence for the same?  How do you explain anomalies?  

What's that?  Oh, the bible sez so.  Well, that definitely invalidates 200 years of research and investigation, doesn't it?

I have no problem with you having faith in the bible.  It's quite another to tell me to repent or go to hell.  I have faith that god isn't going to punish me for wanting to explore the world and learn as much as I can.  If he didn't want people to reach the results, why provide the evidence pointing in that direction?

In short, believe creationism if you want.  But do not claim that there is scientific evidence to back you up, when all you've presented so far for evidence is the ignoring of facts which don't agree with you


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 1:39 PM on April 11, 2004 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.